I feel a little like Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, but for God's sake (literally) let's let evolution/intelligent\ design/or\ whatever do what it has for the past whatever years.
Next we're going to have Herbicide-resistant children...and then how are we going to control population???
Since when did it become legal for someone to access a private database system. Wasn't the reporter committing a crime?
Of course we all know that some poor sys admin just got chewed out for making the password decay policy too difficult. Naturally in an effort to ease the user's pain they just issued a generic (probably at the request of his overlord). Now he'll no doubt get the shaft.
That said, he/she/it should not have been so negligent.
When I was a kid, my parents made me confess to the grocery store clerk that I had stolen a lollypop. The lollypops were just sitting there for anyone to grab and put in their pocket. Oh....but wait, we as a society prosecute shop lifting. Hmmm...
So why not start finally prosecuting the hackers. It was a password protected site. The reporter's use of the password was still a violation, regardless of the intention.
Alsee, your post is not only a fantastic writing, but is well thought out. You obviously took the time to negotiate your chain of logic well. So, before I progress I must at least say a hearty "cheers" for your work. And thank you for taking it seriously, as opposed to those who just ranked it a Troll.;)
I'm actually going to try and spell out some of the major concerns that I have with the theory of evolution.
I will begin with your mathematics.
To be fair, your math is accurate for the most part (that is, I am sure we could quible over decimal points). However, I do not disagree with your analysis. Given the theory of evolution and the petitio principii (begging the question) of survival of the fittest.
Your math presumes a very important premise -- that there is a basic ground work, or genetic framework upon which genetically mutating phenomena can occur. This presumes that there is a framework for the DNA strand, or that there are amino acids, or that there are atoms, electrons, neutrons, etc., etc.
Genetic mutational reductionism does escalate the potential for isolated progression of uniqueness, but only assuming that the appropriate environment has been established.
In other words, your math works, but only within the framework (or design) of your genetic testing framework. Once we step outside of that framework your numbers begin to fall apart.
I will now ask (and please take me seriously) for one scientist out there to please explain to me the mathmatical justification for the creation of a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand. Now please recall that there is no room for testing in the basic formation of the first DNA strand.
Now of course lets climb back down the ladder of improbability...
How about the formation of the first amino acid...oh, right...it came here from a magical other planet (who mastered its own mathematical improbability and generously sent us its only begotten son). No....a comet collided in such a perfect mathematical way that is produced amino acids...oh...which just so happened to survive long enough to quickly mutate in the pools of sulfuric acid on the beach resort of pre-life earth.
Oh...wait...and then there's the mathematical improbability of the earth coming together in just the right alignment....no..wait...it came from astro dust...no...wait...
AND THAT CAME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Not just nothing. It was nothing nothing. Yep,
Please....please find me a math prof to help with that one.
sortof like the unprovable assumption of evolution?????
a theory is a theory my friend, unless you have a blog entry from 10,000 BC (sorry...new earth dates)
But then again, the sheer numeric improbability of evolution is science. Sorry, I forgot.
Evidently Harvard would have us believe that a butterfly that looks like a butterfly, smells like a butterfly, and flies like a butterfly, but has a different colour stipe on its wing....
...has become something other than a butterfly????
Perhaps some day they will begin to utilize the same level of improbability in their research to discover why people care about this article.
Then again, harvard is busy trying to remember the words environmental adaptation and consequence.
When the butterflies start doing math...then send me the article.
Give me a break! Exactly who let this person post an advertisement on Slashdot. We do have editors on here right?
And please...There are a thousand ways to store documents. SSH/FTP/WEBDAV/SVN (as just a few protocols) and a meriad of apps to support them in either platform.
Can anyone explain to me why I would want to give someone a distro that runs the root user as the system default (a.k.a. windows baggage).
In fact, I went to Frye's the other day, saw the Lindows demo, brought a manager over and showed him how to foobar the entire distro in 10 seconds by changing the/etc/passwd file (with the default root environment)
you don't suppose M$ will let me use their toilets once they patent the direction the water flows when flushed???
*sig under patent, please pay to read*
I don't want to be Microsoft
on
Red Hat Recap
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
From the article: Matthew Szulik, chief executive of Red Hat, says Carey's views do not represent those of most Red Hat customers. But in the same conversation, Szulik says he'd love it if Red Hat could become the next Microsoft. "Who wouldn't want to be Microsoft?" he asks. "I mean, come on. Honestly."
There can only be one monopoly for any given new market. It is the nature of things (e.g. telephony, steel industry, automobile industry, oil, etc.) Unfortunately, M$'s market/technology was a worldwide phenomenon (spelling?). IMHO, M$ was a monopoly that should have been caught long before.
This claim by Szulik (no doubt spoken without thought) reveals their true ethic where OSS is concerned.
From the article - "Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java."
Well...perhaps they've seen the benefit of the OpenOffice project.
a quote from the fedora site about the Core 2 includes:
more Java software using gcj (Ant, Tomcat, Jakarta, Eclipse, but not Mozilla plugins, AWT, or Swing)
I am excited to see the growth of java on the desktop and as part of distributions. And for us J2EE guys the eclipse/tomcat/jakarta/ant integration is exciting. But why is there no focus on integration with browsers?
And yes...I have tried Mozilla's self-install and have also wanted to stab my eyes with a pencil trying to configure the plugins, which work on occasion with embedded applets.
Well...whereas I agree with you in principle, the owner has really no other way to protect his business, than to write contract so as to cover all possible scenarios.
It IS clear that you have not ever been burned by an employee who took your life long built business ideas and workflows and competed directly. Well, a good friend of mine did, in a situation that could be played out in the vagueness of the poster.
In the service sector (e.g. web design), work flow is just as much an intellectual capital as "Property that is the direct result of work performed for the company, involved use of company property, and/or was created or invented during paid hours spent working for the company"!
And why should I pay someone to learn all that I've developed, while s/he grows as a programmer (for instance) so they can turn around and use that intellectual capital against me. That would hardly be fair, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not sure why you would ever expect a company to allow you to develop possibly competing products, especially when you are doing R&D on their time, honing your skills on their time, and enjoying ALL of the perks of their time.
Your employer, believe it or not, has gone out on a line in many cases to provide you with a fair amount of amenities (health care, a paycheck, security, work atmosphere, etc.). The business owner has no doubt laid down his/her own life/success/money to start the business, assuming all the risk.
You can't assume a baker to figure out a recipe, build a restaurant, market the product and then allow someone to start a restaurant on their own, borrowing many of the intellectual-elbow-grease-earned property of his/her business.
Either do as they did and get with the program (in business) with much risk but high reward, or lesson your risk and do the J-O-B!
For those of you in the dark, thats the protocol behind the only tried and proven open IM platform, Jabber.
dang.....some day I'll finally arrive in the light. For now I suppose I'll just have to stay content with the small shack I built out of technical manuals. Well...thanks for the further enlightenment...it gives me something to think about on this desert island.;)
/* Presuming this is a response to the posting of MS Ad on USPS... If not...please ignore */
I'm not sure you understood the point. My concern was with the explicit advertising by a for-profit corp on a public/Gov't owned domain, regardless of the corp. (i.e. you and I are paying for a for-profit's advertising). I was literally asking (perhaps didn't make it clear enough) for some more informed person to help me understand.
I have no tinfoil hat's, they're all licensed by MS.
Can somebody explain to me how a Microsoft Advertisement landed itself on a Government website (https://www.uspsepm.com/epm/epm_office_ext/index. htm)? The domain is owned by the USPS. Am I missing something here? I was under the impression that commercial advertising was not permitted on government help domains...
Let them charge whatever they want. It's the branding and support you're paying for, not necessarily the software.
My clients would never allow me to house their mission critical websites on Gentoo just because it sounds silly. But RedHat, yeah...they read about them in an article, and know they have support...they'll pay for that...
Beyond the expense, the law of supply and demand will guard against inflating costs (well, unless you purchasing from MS);D
I for one am glad that RH has the forsight to acknowledge the need for branding. FINALLY, I can bring Linux to my clients!
Slashdot Mirror
I feel a little like Dr. Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park, but for God's sake (literally) let's let evolution/intelligent\ design/or\ whatever do what it has for the past whatever years.
Next we're going to have Herbicide-resistant children...and then how are we going to control population???
Since when did it become legal for someone to access a private database system. Wasn't the reporter committing a crime?
Of course we all know that some poor sys admin just got chewed out for making the password decay policy too difficult. Naturally in an effort to ease the user's pain they just issued a generic (probably at the request of his overlord). Now he'll no doubt get the shaft.
That said, he/she/it should not have been so negligent.
When I was a kid, my parents made me confess to the grocery store clerk that I had stolen a lollypop. The lollypops were just sitting there for anyone to grab and put in their pocket. Oh....but wait, we as a society prosecute shop lifting. Hmmm...
So why not start finally prosecuting the hackers. It was a password protected site. The reporter's use of the password was still a violation, regardless of the intention.
Alsee, your post is not only a fantastic writing, but is well thought out. You obviously took the time to negotiate your chain of logic well. So, before I progress I must at least say a hearty "cheers" for your work. And thank you for taking it seriously, as opposed to those who just ranked it a Troll. ;)
I'm actually going to try and spell out some of the major concerns that I have with the theory of evolution.
I will begin with your mathematics.
To be fair, your math is accurate for the most part (that is, I am sure we could quible over decimal points). However, I do not disagree with your analysis. Given the theory of evolution and the petitio principii (begging the question) of survival of the fittest.
Your math presumes a very important premise -- that there is a basic ground work, or genetic framework upon which genetically mutating phenomena can occur. This presumes that there is a framework for the DNA strand, or that there are amino acids, or that there are atoms, electrons, neutrons, etc., etc.
Genetic mutational reductionism does escalate the potential for isolated progression of uniqueness, but only assuming that the appropriate environment has been established.
In other words, your math works, but only within the framework (or design) of your genetic testing framework. Once we step outside of that framework your numbers begin to fall apart.
I will now ask (and please take me seriously) for one scientist out there to please explain to me the mathmatical justification for the creation of a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) strand. Now please recall that there is no room for testing in the basic formation of the first DNA strand.
Now of course lets climb back down the ladder of improbability...
How about the formation of the first amino acid...oh, right...it came here from a magical other planet (who mastered its own mathematical improbability and generously sent us its only begotten son). No....a comet collided in such a perfect mathematical way that is produced amino acids...oh...which just so happened to survive long enough to quickly mutate in the pools of sulfuric acid on the beach resort of pre-life earth.
Oh...wait...and then there's the mathematical improbability of the earth coming together in just the right alignment....no..wait...it came from astro dust...no...wait...
AND THAT CAME FROM ABSOLUTELY NOTHING...THAT'S RIGHT FOLKS...ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Not just nothing. It was nothing nothing. Yep,
Please....please find me a math prof to help with that one.
sortof like the unprovable assumption of evolution????? a theory is a theory my friend, unless you have a blog entry from 10,000 BC (sorry...new earth dates) But then again, the sheer numeric improbability of evolution is science. Sorry, I forgot.
Evidently Harvard would have us believe that a butterfly that looks like a butterfly, smells like a butterfly, and flies like a butterfly, but has a different colour stipe on its wing....
...has become something other than a butterfly????
Perhaps some day they will begin to utilize the same level of improbability in their research to discover why people care about this article.
Then again, harvard is busy trying to remember the words environmental adaptation and consequence.
When the butterflies start doing math...then send me the article.
Give me a break! Exactly who let this person post an advertisement on Slashdot. We do have editors on here right?
And please...There are a thousand ways to store documents. SSH/FTP/WEBDAV/SVN (as just a few protocols) and a meriad of apps to support them in either platform.
Can anyone explain to me why I would want to give someone a distro that runs the root user as the system default (a.k.a. windows baggage).
In fact, I went to Frye's the other day, saw the Lindows demo, brought a manager over and showed him how to foobar the entire distro in 10 seconds by changing the /etc/passwd file (with the default root environment)
Don't worry....China will have a new version of Java for us in a couple of weeks anyway.
Shouldn't the Gates/Borg icon have been used with this posting???
""The Bazaar can only go so far selling indulgences.""
you don't suppose M$ will let me use their toilets once they patent the direction the water flows when flushed???
*sig under patent, please pay to read*
From the article: Matthew Szulik, chief executive of Red Hat, says Carey's views do not represent those of most Red Hat customers. But in the same conversation, Szulik says he'd love it if Red Hat could become the next Microsoft. "Who wouldn't want to be Microsoft?" he asks. "I mean, come on. Honestly."
There can only be one monopoly for any given new market. It is the nature of things (e.g. telephony, steel industry, automobile industry, oil, etc.) Unfortunately, M$'s market/technology was a worldwide phenomenon (spelling?). IMHO, M$ was a monopoly that should have been caught long before.
This claim by Szulik (no doubt spoken without thought) reveals their true ethic where OSS is concerned.
There can only be one Ra...
From the article - "Sun officials planned to meet with IBM as early as Thursday to discuss the merits of whether the company should work with IBM on an independent project to create an open-source implementation of Java."
Well...perhaps they've seen the benefit of the OpenOffice project.
more Java software using gcj (Ant, Tomcat, Jakarta, Eclipse, but not Mozilla plugins, AWT, or Swing)
I am excited to see the growth of java on the desktop and as part of distributions. And for us J2EE guys the eclipse/tomcat/jakarta/ant integration is exciting. But why is there no focus on integration with browsers?
And yes...I have tried Mozilla's self-install and have also wanted to stab my eyes with a pencil trying to configure the plugins, which work on occasion with embedded applets.
Well...whereas I agree with you in principle, the owner has really no other way to protect his business, than to write contract so as to cover all possible scenarios.
It IS clear that you have not ever been burned by an employee who took your life long built business ideas and workflows and competed directly. Well, a good friend of mine did, in a situation that could be played out in the vagueness of the poster.
In the service sector (e.g. web design), work flow is just as much an intellectual capital as "Property that is the direct result of work performed for the company, involved use of company property, and/or was created or invented during paid hours spent working for the company"!
And why should I pay someone to learn all that I've developed, while s/he grows as a programmer (for instance) so they can turn around and use that intellectual capital against me. That would hardly be fair, wouldn't you agree?
I'm not sure why you would ever expect a company to allow you to develop possibly competing products, especially when you are doing R&D on their time, honing your skills on their time, and enjoying ALL of the perks of their time.
Your employer, believe it or not, has gone out on a line in many cases to provide you with a fair amount of amenities (health care, a paycheck, security, work atmosphere, etc.). The business owner has no doubt laid down his/her own life/success/money to start the business, assuming all the risk.
You can't assume a baker to figure out a recipe, build a restaurant, market the product and then allow someone to start a restaurant on their own, borrowing many of the intellectual-elbow-grease-earned property of his/her business.
Either do as they did and get with the program (in business) with much risk but high reward, or lesson your risk and do the J-O-B!
I'm a business owner...can you tell????
For those of you in the dark, thats the protocol behind the only tried and proven open IM platform, Jabber.
dang.....some day I'll finally arrive in the light. For now I suppose I'll just have to stay content with the small shack I built out of technical manuals. Well...thanks for the further enlightenment...it gives me something to think about on this desert island. ;)
It is of course Beta 1, with loads of new additions to be had. Lord knows that there's no finality in a BETA. ;)
/* Presuming this is a response to the posting of MS Ad on USPS... If not...please ignore */
I'm not sure you understood the point. My concern was with the explicit advertising by a for-profit corp on a public/Gov't owned domain, regardless of the corp. (i.e. you and I are paying for a for-profit's advertising). I was literally asking (perhaps didn't make it clear enough) for some more informed person to help me understand.
I have no tinfoil hat's, they're all licensed by MS.
Zip Zop!!Can somebody explain to me how a Microsoft Advertisement landed itself on a Government website (https://www.uspsepm.com/epm/epm_office_ext/index. htm)? The domain is owned by the USPS. Am I missing something here? I was under the impression that commercial advertising was not permitted on government help domains...
Let them charge whatever they want. It's the branding and support you're paying for, not necessarily the software.
My clients would never allow me to house their mission critical websites on Gentoo just because it sounds silly. But RedHat, yeah...they read about them in an article, and know they have support...they'll pay for that...
Beyond the expense, the law of supply and demand will guard against inflating costs (well, unless you purchasing from MS) ;D
I for one am glad that RH has the forsight to acknowledge the need for branding. FINALLY, I can bring Linux to my clients!